Skepticism and The Normal

[Z]

Gnu:

The reason why scientific observation does not fall into the subjective category, is because scientific observation is universal for all observers. Beauty might be universal for a set of observers, but never for all observers.

Consensus subjective opinion is only valid for a set group; but for the group containing all possible observers and/or no observers, consensus reality is invalid.

What I'm trying to say is, you still have only two categories: subjective (an observation unique to one or more participants, but which is not true for all participants) and objective (an observation common to all participants that would still be true with no participants).

There is no internal contradiction, as long as you accurately apply proper definitions to subjective and objective. In the case of subjective, you're referring to opinions; and while a number of people might agree on a particular opinion, that doesn't make it objective fact; because someone still might disagree.

But in the case of the objective, you're referring to facts; and facts are indesputable if they are properly measured, by those properly engaging their mental facilities.

(Obviously, the above avoids the unnecessary tangle of dealing with incompetent, disabled, or mentally ill observers, to whom anything might be arbitrarily true or false)

So beauty remains, regardless of all discussion, a purely subjective quality. Even if 99% of abled-peoples regard a person as beautiful, it remains subjective. In part it is because beauty has never been rigidly defined (and such definition universally accepted); and in part because all the qualities applied to beauty still must be measured on the scale of subjective observation.

For example, no one is perfectly symmetrical; and while you have been harping on beauty being perfect symmetry, the fact is that people can only ever approach such a standard, never meet it.

But how much symmetry is beautiful? To some, the more the better; to others, a too-symmetrical face looks artificial or plastic. No scale exists to show beauty as a quantity; it shall ever always be a quality, and an ephemeral one at that.

You discussed beauty in music as well - and again, harmony and syncopation are only considered beautiful in some cultures - not all. In some, simplicity is beautiful, and harmony is considered too complex; in others, rhythm is seen as too mechanical and unfeeling, while free-style, arhythmic pieces are the height of beauty.

There really is no way to get around the idea that beauty is subjective. It is of little value, when categorizing things into O-S, to come up with a third form; there's no such thing as 'more than subjective, but less than objective'.

Science is objective, because its observations are true for all observers; beauty is subjective, because its observations are only true for some observers.

(And, no, science is not done 'on consensus'; complete agreement about observations is not 'consensus'.)

 

[drkitten]

And as I said, after everybody's questions so far, I still find this system coherent, indeed more coherent than a two-category system, subjective/objective, which produces internal contradictions such as requiring one of the definitions of 'objective' to be 'subjective', as I've pointed out.

I'd be much more swayed by this if you had indeed pointed out any such internal contradictions.

 

[Timanfaya]

Guess who?...

I cant wait til I return to the discussion. I almost feel like I have opened Pandora's box over there. Even when I take a break to focus on other work, the thread STILL continues and grows. Is this the largest OS 012 discussion to date? I think it is.

What I find interesting is each layer of new antithesis that gets 'seduced' into the discussion. I have a hunch that this is the first time in their lives they have been properly presented with an 'argument' against there own deep seated philosophies which I dont even think many of them are aware of.

etc. etc. blah blah...

 

[Gnu Ordure]

Is anyone else getting the strong impression that Gnu is just Bubb, slowed down so he can actually write comprehensibly and with a spell checker?

flim, I understand.

If I were you, I'd be suspiscious too.

I already remarked on the coincidence that I first posted here just as Bubb temporarily withdrew.

That coincidence is now joined by the fact that two days ago, just as I offered to withdraw myself, Bubb's computer apparently blew up, enabling me to continue my argument, without feeling guilty about hijacking the thread.

Spooky, or what ?

Add to that the fact that my very first post here was in fact positive about Bubb's part in the creation of this thread, and I thanked him for it.

Add to that the fact that the model I'm presenting can be summarized in the form of three numbers (1 1+ 0) a proposal which does, I must reluctantly concede, possess very slight similarities to the bubb proposal (1 2 0).

On the other hand....

1. I am not Bubb

2. my argument is entirely separate to Bubb's, I have never made any reference to his model, and as I've already said, I don't understand his model anyway.

3. As far as I know, Bubb has never before done what you're suggesting (sock-puppet).

4. and anyway, how would it help him to have an alter-ego present and defend a completely different system ?

Only if SCO1260000000000 could be miraculously converted into OS012....

.... and I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

5. I'm not dyslexic.

No, really.

Many a long hour have I pondered why Bubb should always spell 'your' as 'you're', and vice-versa.

Given his penchant for mind-games, the possibility of deliberate provocation immediately presents itself.

But... the scale of it ! over and over again, consistently and indiscriminately, the same mistake, in forum after forum....

if it's deliberate, it's an amazing feat of concentration, to always mis-spell two simple words.

Occams razor ? the more likely explanation ?

dyslexia.

I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves. Persecuting a handicapped person like that.



Anyway, back to the point.

I can't think of any way I can prove I'm not Bubb.

Does anyone else know of a way ?

If so, I'll be happy to co-operate, and demonstrate the fact that we are in fact two people.


Is there a kind of Turing test ? Get me and Bubb on-line at the same time; what questions would you then need to ask in order to establish whether we were separate people ?

Anyway...

I've read the recent posts, I'm happy to respond, but later, ok ?



Gnu.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

I said

Hokulele, I hope I've answered your point as well; using only two categories produces either internal contradiction ("one definition of objective is 'subjective'"), or absurdity ("scientific knowledge is merely subjective").

then I said

And as I said, after everybody's questions so far, I still find this system coherent, indeed more coherent than a two-category system, subjective/objective, which produces internal contradictions such as requiring one of the definitions of 'objective' to be 'subjective', as I've pointed out.

dr kitten said

I'd be much more swayed by this if you had indeed pointed out any such internal contradictions.

I did, dr k, but I'm happy to do it again, if you missed it. Watch.

z just said, in defense of the two-category system:

What I'm trying to say is, you still have only two categories: subjective (an observation unique to one or more participants, but which is not true for all participants) and objective (an observation common to all participants that would still be true with no participants).

so let's use those definitions to categorize a statement, OK, as a test ?

(By the way, you're using the original dictionary definitions, I suddenly notice. I thought you wanted to move the observational part of the objective definition into the subjective definition, z ? Anyway, it doesn't matter).

Let's categorize this : "The sky is blue".

Not too ambiguous, or controversial, I hope.


(By the way, for clarity, this argument depends on the assumption that everyone in the world experiences the sky, on a sunny day, as blue).

Test "The sky is blue" against the definition of subjective ("an observation unique to one or more participants, but which is not true for all participants"):

Yes, it's an observation unique to "one or more participants", but no, it's not "not true for all participants" - everyone experiences the sky as blue, so it fails the definition.


Fair enough ?



Now test against the definition of objective ("an observation common to all participants that would still be true with no participants"):

Yes, it's "an observation common to all participants", but no, it would not "still be true with no participants" - so it fails the definition.

Because, z, as you said yesterday, (in a statement I entirely agree with) :

color is a function of our brain's interpretation of certain wavelengths of light. Light has intensity, wavelength, frequency, etc; but until it's been received and interpreted by a brain, it may not necessarily be 'blue'.

As you state, the sky cannot be blue without a participant/observer.

So, it fails the definition of 'objective'.




So, according to your system, the blueness of the sky qualifies as neither subjective nor objective.

It's not subjective, because the experience is the same for eveybody - the sky is blue, for everyone.

But it's not objective either, because if you remove the observers, the sky is no longer blue, as you admit.

Do you see the problem ?




Two categories bad, three categories good...




Gnu.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

while you have been harping on beauty being perfect symmetry, the fact is that people can only ever approach such a standard, never meet it.

by the way, z, you are going to have trouble understanding my arguments if you get them mixed up with bubb's...

bubb's the one going on about perfect symmetry, I've never mentioned it.

And anyway, I'm quite clear in my mind now that it's not necessary for my argument to define the parameters of beauty - (and so the digression into the nature of those qualities and how they might be defined and individually measured was a red herring).

You discussed beauty in music as well - and again, harmony and syncopation are only considered beautiful in some cultures - not all.

likewise, I think that's bubb again, who talked at length about harmony and syncopation.... though I did mention the music thing briefly, I think....

gnu.

 

[zooterkin]

Because, z, as you said yesterday, (in a statement I entirely agree with) :

color is a function of our brain's interpretation of certain wavelengths of light. Light has intensity, wavelength, frequency, etc; but until it's been received and interpreted by a brain, it may not necessarily be 'blue'.

As you state, the sky cannot be blue without a participant/observer.

So, it fails the definition of 'objective'.




So, according to your system, the blueness of the sky qualifies as neither subjective nor objective.

Z already addressed this, in the very post you quoted. It's a matter of definition. If there are no observers, then of course the property must be defined in terms that do not depend on an observer. Here's the complete post.

I might be a bit more flexible on the notion of 'is the light blue', since color is a function of our brain's interpretation of certain wavelengths of light. Light has intensity, wavelength, frequency, etc; but until it's been received and interpreted by a brain, it may not necessarily be 'blue'.

Then again, if we apply a more accurate scientific definition to 'blue' - light reflected or emitted in the wavelength of 440–490 nm - then we've reverted it to an objective measurement. So it would be entirely accurate, at that point, to say that the light is still blue, even if no one is present to see it.

Why did you choose to ignore the second part?

 

[Z]

Yes, Gnu seems to have cherry-picked my post to attempt to address the situation in a dishonest fashion.

But that doesn't matter.

Even using the first portion that Gnu quoted, he's wrong on one point: the experience of 'blue' as interpreted by brains would not be true for all observers! Now, you're wondering, I suppose, how I could make that claim? Simple. Because each of us has had different experiences throughout our lives, so each of us DOES see 'blue' a bit differently. Also, not all cultures use the same concept of 'blue' that we do... The Chinese term covers both blue and green together, and recent research actually indicates that the Chinese really don't see blue the same way we do!

So, no, Gnu... if that's who you are... the perception of the color blue would be subjective. Period.

Which is why it is so very important to use a more precise definition, like the second half of the quote (the part you dismissed), in order to objectively describe colors.

But anyway, let's try this again:

Test "The sky is blue" against the definition of subjective ("an observation unique to one or more participants, but which is not true for all participants"):

Yes, it's an observation unique to "one or more participants", and yes, it's "not true for all participants" - the experience of 'blue' is different for people in different cultures, so it PASSES the test.

Fair enough ?



Now test against the definition of objective ("an observation common to all participants that would still be true with no participants"):

No, it's not "an observation common to all participants", and yes, it would not "still be true with no participants" - so it fails the definition.

Two categories good. Misquoting posts and using lazy definitions, failing to understand the effects of culture on perception, and failing to look beyond your ethnocentric point of view, bad.

 

[Z]

heh... also, I don't know about anyone else, buy my sky is yellow-grey today, not blue.

 

[zooterkin]

Even using the first portion that Gnu quoted, he's wrong on one point: the experience of 'blue' as interpreted by brains would not be true for all observers! Now, you're wondering, I suppose, how I could make that claim? Simple. Because each of us has had different experiences throughout our lives, so each of us DOES see 'blue' a bit differently. Also, not all cultures use the same concept of 'blue' that we do... The Chinese term covers both blue and green together, and recent research actually indicates that the Chinese really don't see blue the same way we do!

I think you're wrong, here. First of all, I agree it's not possible to be sure that two people experience the colour blue the same way. However, we're not talking about the experience itself, but effectively the label that it's being given; even if the quality of the experience varies, they are all experiencing what each would call 'blue'. Regardless of how they are experiencing it, the different observers will agree that what they are saying is a blue sky. The colour they see will match one of the colours of light "reflected or emitted in the wavelength of 440–490 nm".

Introducing a different culture is interesting, but I think not an indication of subjectivity in identifying colour given the last sentence above. For the purpose of an experiment, maybe colour samples could be used to match the colour of the sky against. What does the research say about how blue is experienced differently? (It brings to mind something I heard once, possibly on QI, that the Ancient Greeks referred to the sky as being bronze in colour.)

So, no, Gnu... if that's who you are... the perception of the color blue would be subjective. Period.

Are you switching your position on this? Earlier you said

Well, as I mentioned above, IF we rigidly define blue, then yes, the light is still blue.

The perception of anything is arguably subjective (which I think is where BF keeps getting confused) in the sense that the experience may vary from person to person, but I don't think you'll find one person say the sky is blue, while another observer claims the same sky is red, especially if we have some independent reference of what 'blue' covers.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Perception of colour categories is a very interesting area. It is all wrapped up with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - that language shapes or determines thought.

Here's the first couple of articles I came across about it when I googled to remind myself of it:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/hues.html

http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/tics.pdf

 

[Mojo]

However, we're not talking about the experience itself, but effectively the label that it's being given; even if the quality of the experience varies, they are all experiencing what each would call 'blue'. Regardless of how they are experiencing it, the different observers will agree that what they are saying is a blue sky. The colour they see will match one of the colours of light "reflected or emitted in the wavelength of 440–490 nm".

Just as an object exactly one metre long remains the same length even if measured in feet and inches. The wavelength of the light, or the length of the object, remains the same; only the label applied differs.

 

[jimbob]

Mojo, following your link

An interesting development.

Remember Bubblefish said that STEORN wern't going to profit from this?

well again quoting you:

Hmm.

Steorn have reportedly raised €14million from private investors ahead of the "expert evaluation" of their "technology".

Their website still says:

Due to the contentious nature of our technology claim the company made a decision that during the process of validation we would seek no further funding.

OP for background:

For those who know about this story.

Steorn have reportedly raised €14million from private investors ahead of the "expert evaluation" of their "technology".

Beats working for it I suppose, but this does help to clarify some of the lingering questions about why these people are doing this. Other curious pointers to their intentions:

• They are employing "independent evaluators" at minimal cost to themselves
• They are not undertaking any expensive development costs (they plan on licencing the "technology" for other to work out how to put it in a mobile phone, say (true, they said that )
• ditto product development
• ditto manufacturing

This should leave a nice big hefty slice ofthe €14 million capital invested to be spent on more important things like directors salaries, benfits, bonuses etc etc.

I don't have a link, but it was an article in the Sunday Times today (Irish edition).

I think I can spot the motive, but then everyone except BF was able to play spot the scam...


Jim

(I like poking), but I suppose BF will give another "update" as to why he can't respond

 

[Mojo]

(I like poking), but I suppose BF will give another "update" as to why he can't respond

According to that last one, his computer's crashed in a way that only allows him to post messages stating that he won't be able to post messages because his computer has crashed.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

To quote Philip K. Dick (RIP): "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Quick aside; I meant to mention earlier, but forgot, how much I like Dick as well.

This afternoon I was just doing some background googling, and stumbled across the field of philosophy which concerns AI and consciousness, Blade Runner territory, in other words, and I found a lot of references to Dick.

I was surprised. I knew Dick was big, but not the subject of academic enquiry. But he is, apparently.

Personally, I love Dick, always have done. I think I discovered Dick at the age of eighteen, and never looked back.

Edith just came in with a cup of tea, so I asked her what she thought about Dick.

She went red (she does that now and again, hot flushes completely at random - Women's stuff, don't really understand it).

Anyway, unlike me, Edith said that initially she found Dick difficult to get a grip on, which I understand, some of his ideas are highly complex.

But then, apparently, her first husband explained a few things, and she started to get the hang of it.

Given the weirdness of his theories, I asked her if sometimes she found him hard to swallow, but she just went red again, poor thing ...

I enquired whether she found Dick hard to handle these days, and she admitted she did.

Her actual words were : "Yes, nowadays I find a little Dick goes a long way".

I agree, some of his concepts do require careful examination.

Then she did something a bit stange, actually. As she got up to leave, she pecked me on the cheek and said "That's why I love you, dear", which frankly makes no sense to me at all. What do the density of his ideas have to do with why she loves me ?

But then, she's 83, sometimes she gets a bit confused....

I get a bit confused myself, sometimes.



Gnu.





.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

Perception of colour categories is a very interesting area. It is all wrapped up with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - that language shapes or determines thought.

Aha, Professor !

I was wondering when some-one would play the Sapir-Whorf card.

But I was expecting it, so I match your Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and raise you an Eckensdorf Conjecture !!

(leans back in chair, exuding quiet confidence...)

(entire audience immediately conclude, correctly, that he is bluffing...)

You're right, Professor, this is an interesting area. And I only fully realized this afternoon how much I don't know about all this stuff; not that I thought that this discussion we're having was in any way original, but I didn't realize how deeply the ideas had been investigated.

(For example, I was just about to use a thought experiment in the discussion, about colour-vision, when I came upon another one in Wiki which made mine seem somewhat inadequate - see below).

What happened was, I was googling z' s claim that that Chinese people see colour differently, when I found this Philosophy paper on the web, (copywright, but quotable as long as I give the reference : http://www.def-logic.com/articles/silby014.html)....

So I was reading it, and it concerned what we were discussing, the nature of light, and it was interesting, here's a bit :

Sensations of colours, pains and sounds seem very real to us and yet they cannot be found in the world external to our minds. If we wish to ask what science can tell us about the colour blue, all we learn is that there is a certain wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that is being reflected off various objects. There is no blue, just radiation.

So far, so good. Then I bumped into this sentence :

It is this question that has led many philosophers to the opinion that qualia does not supervene on the functional organisations of the brain. This is to say that even if we had a complete understanding of the brain's functional organisation, we would not be able to account for qualia because they cannot be captured by a functionalist account of the mind

Ah, functionalism. Not a term I'm very familiar with. Maybe it'll become clear if I keep reading. It doesn't. Never mind, check Wiki, learn something.

The first page on 'Functionalism' starts :

Functionalism is a term with several senses:

For functionalism in sociology, see Functionalism (sociology).
For structural-functionalism in anthropology, see structural functionalism
For functionalism in the philosophy of mind, see Functionalism (philosophy of mind)
For functionalism in architecture, see Functionalism (architecture).
For functionalism in linguistics, see Functional grammar
For functionalism in political science, see Functionalism in international relations
For functionalism in psychology and cognitive science, see Functionalism (psychology)
For Functionalism in Holocaust history, see Functionalism versus Intentionalism

Ah, riiiight ...

A whole lot of stuff I know nothing about.

This means that as far as the details of our discussion go, I have probably reached the limits of my comprehension. (I'm stiil happy to continue it, though, to see where it goes).

Anyway, after noticing that any of four of these definitions might apply to the philosophy paper, I started with the "Psychology" one. On the first page, in the section on "Inverted Spectra", there's a description of a 40-year-old thought-experiment:

Consider if the red paper Kate made her response on were green to Kate because she had undergone surgery as an infant and had her ‘green’ and ‘red’ vision inverted although was still brought up to identify ‘green’ objects (really red) as red and vice versa. Indeed, if Kate were to have a twin who did not have the operation they would both report that the piece of paper was red, even though Kate was experiencing green

Now that's what I call a thought-experiment.

Brain-surgery and twins, what's not to like.

And it's making my head hurt doing it.

Although now that I think about it, the thought-experiment I was going to do did involve the extinction of all life on Earth with the exception of one astronaut in a space-station, so you couldn't say it didn't have dramatic qualities.

However, I'm going to lie down in a dark room for a couple of hours, and not think about functionalism.

I may have a sensible contribution to make to the discussion later, if I feel better.


Gnu.








PS By the way, on whether the Chinese see differently, I found nothing except that Asians suffer a particular form of colour-blindness slightly less than Europeans or Africans.

PPS Likewise, I found no evidence, as both z and zooterkin asserted, that people with normal vision see different shades of blue.

("I agree it's not possible to be sure that two people experience the colour blue the same way" - zooterkin).

Why not ? We can detect many kinds of colour-blindness with precise diagnostic tools. The same tools imply that people with normal vision experience colours ... er .. normally.

I appreciate vision is tremendously complex, but I couldn't find any evidence that a normal eye doesn't produce a standard response to a standard stimulus.

Not that it affects the argument - I'm just curious. Do you have a reference of some kind ?

 

[Z]

Just to start, here's a fascinating Wiki article on issues concerning identifying and classifying color schemes based on language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguishing_"blue"_from_"green"_in_language

Saying 'The sky is blue' may not even translate correctly for all observers!

This next Wiki article talks about color perception - and explains how color perception is itself a subjective quality, and how color is not a natural part of any object at all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_perception

This one is about the difference in perception between the genders - yes, women DO see thinks differently from us! http://www.psycport.com/stories/asc...ng-ascribe_014026_988726893508805748.xml.html

How color language actually shapes perception... http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/hues.html

Anyway, it's a good place to start.

 

[jimbob]

Anecdotally, I have a colleague who has slightly differnt sensitivities to red in eash of his eyes, so his experience of "red" depends on which eye. He had no reason to lie and you can get a similar effect for oneself by looking at something immediately after almost dazzling one eye.

So colour perception can change within the individual.

This is a digression from the main point anyway, that aesthetic and moral judgements are inherently subjective.

 

[Z]

You know, jimbob, that wasn't the main point either. That was an offshoot point of Bub claiming that OS012 was an objective system for evaluating the truth value of statements.

Which in turn... oh, never mind.

Maybe Bub will return, maybe Bub will not return...

 

[Gnu Ordure]

Yes, Gnu seems to have cherry-picked my post to attempt to address the situation in a dishonest fashion.

Misquoting posts and using lazy definitions, failing to understand the effects of culture on perception, and failing to look beyond your ethnocentric point of view, bad.

ouch, ouch, ouch, z.

If you could somehow get grand larceny and murder one in there as well, you'd have the full set.

But to be honest, this isn't the first time this has happened to me - on another forum one time, I suddenly became the subject of an onslaught of vile and baseless anonymous allegations....

.. made me hoppin' mad, I can tell you...

... and as God is my witness, if I ever get my hands on those alligators....


.